4

Communism is declared in what was formally the USA...

Submitted by ziq in Whiteness (edited )

Every single person is given an equal piece of land to work / live on and an equal share of the natural resources. How does this affect Indigenous peoples that today have already been pushed onto ever-shrinking 'reservations' that are being permanently polluted and desertified to benefit European settlers?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

retiredaccount wrote

Wouldn't communism not be everyone having an equal piece of land but many people having land together?

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Everyone gets an equal share, whether it's collectively worked / lived on or not is irrelevant. The end result is settlers having the same usage of land / culture as indigenous peoples.

Which means intensive agriculture would need to be the way of life for everyone rather than hunting and gathering; as that kind of lifestyle requires vast tracts of fallow land that would now be divvied up between billions of settlers and used for housing, resource extraction, industry and agriculture.

Indigenous culture would be just as erased as it is now, if not moreso.

2

Gerrard_Winstanley wrote

The issue here is that for a hunter/gatherer lifestyle to be viable, the population cannot exceed a certain threshold. Too many people in one place will consume the resources (wild game and undomesticated edible plants) before they can regenerate within the ecosystem. Agriculture is an evolutionary technology that allows more people who inhabit a defined area by producing food faster, though not necessarily more efficiently. Agriculture is not a settler or even European technology.

Is your statement an argument for primitivism or are you just trying to say that equal redistribution of resources won't solve social problems? If it is the second, then I agree. The benefit of communism or another libertarian left political expression would be ability of communities to make their own democratic decisions. But....The democratic benefits aren't that great if you're in a minority and cannot accomplish your desires because you're outnumbered by descendants of colonizers. Communism alone can't solve the problems that colonialism has created. I believe a communist/anarchist society is the most likely to pursue the kinds of initiatives required to repair the situation.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Agriculture is not a settler or even European technology.

Notice I said intensive agriculture. North American tribes certainly farmed, but not the way we farm today (destructively).

Is your statement an argument for primitivism

It's just an attempt to question how communism (a European political ideology that attempted to give miserable industrial-age workers a fair share of their labor) will help indigenous people. I agree with you that it wouldn't help much and that democracy wouldn't help either because they're vastly outnumbered by settlers.

2

Gerrard_Winstanley wrote

I think you're making a very important point. In my view, the main post-revolutionary goal should be a blitz of education including for adults. The US population in general has an extremely narrow and often downright incorrect understanding of history, sociology, anthropology and a long list of other subjects. Its important to not teach conclusions to people but rather to give them the tools of critical thinking so they can come to conclusions on their own that benefit the entire community.

Ignorance makes us susceptible to bigotry and suspicion. Knowledge lets us answer questions with compassion and reason.

1

raindropq wrote

i feel like resonding to that last part because it looks meaningless , to me. : did you (intentionally) put it backwards? ; what if knowledge makes us susceptible to ignorant bigotry and suspicion where-as, naivete makes us to respond with compassion and reasonin?

-3

ThisGuyIsAProblem wrote

That was exactly how it used to be when the European settlers arrived. What happened was some people didn't work, people went hungry and harvested crop before it was ripe, people didn't share, etc. and at the end of the season there wasn't enough food for everyone.
So they decided everyone would have their own piece of land to do whatever they want and people were responsible for themself. Extra food could be traded and it worked better.
But then people realized land was a limiting resource, so people wanted more land. So people began buying land, and the. everyone didnt have land and the system got worse. Blacks were used as slaves to work their land since blacks had no land for themselves.
Even in Native American culture land has been an issue. Animals tend to move, migrate, and what not so what happens when the herd is in enemy territory or there's no animals around? Do you steal, kill the other tribes? Starve? What happens when winter comes? Do you stay put or find a new spot? The native Americans were no strangers to war.

2

retiredaccount wrote

What happened was some people didn't work, people went hungry and harvested crop before it was ripe, people didn't share, etc. and at the end of the season there wasn't enough food for everyone.

Natives did that quite alright. Sounds to me like the 'European culture' everyone like you loves was the issue.

Even in Native American culture land has been an issue. Animals tend to move, migrate, and what not so what happens when the herd is in enemy territory or there's no animals around?

Most native tribes outside of the more established 'territorial' ones like the Pueblo or Haudenasaunee were migratory themselves, so that would be a moot point, no? There's no 'enemy territory', there's only Turtle Island.

Do you stay put or find a new spot?

Refer to above.

2

ziq wrote

I have no idea what you're trying to say. How were the settlers communist? They were marauding invaders and feudal lords.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Judging by your post history, your grasp of basic political theory is appaling, so on second thought don't bother answering.